4.4 Article

An event-related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in sentence processing

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 120-133

出版社

M I T PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/08989290051137648

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P50 HD25802, P01 HD21888] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS38467] Funding Source: Medline
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P01HD021888, P50HD025802] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS038467] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two coordinated experiments using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) investigated whether the brain represents language form (grammatical structure) separately from its meaning content (semantics). While in the scanner, 14 young, unimpaired adults listened to simple sentences that were either nonanomalous or contained a grammatical error (for example, *Trees can grew.), or a semantic anomaly (for example, *Trees can cat.). A same/different tone pitch judgment task provided a baseline that isolated brain activity associated with linguistic processing from background activity generated by attention to the task and analysis of the auditory input. Sites selectively activated by sentence processing were found in both hemispheres in inferior frontal, middle, and superior frontal, superior temporal, and temporo-parietal regions. Effects of syntactic and semantic anomalies were differentiated by some nonoverlapping areas of activation: Syntactic anomaly triggered significantly increased activity in and around Broca's area, whereas semantic anomaly activated several other sites anteriorly and posteriorly, among them Wernicke's area. These dissociations occurred when listeners were not required to attend to the anomaly. The results confirm that linguistic operations in sentence processing can be isolated from nonlinguistic operations and support the hypothesis of a specialization for syntactic processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据